9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 1250X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... together for hearing and disposal. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the present case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of transformers falling under Chapter subheading 85042200 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They also undertake job work for M/s. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. (BHEL, for short) by an agreement, whereby they receive raw materials viz. Copper wire rods from BHEL for further processing and the job-worked goods are sent to BHEL on payment of excise duty. Alleging that the assessable value of the job-worked goods determined by the appellant is not correct, show-cause notices were issued on 08.09.2011 and 26.12.2011 demanding differential duty of Rs.1,06,280/- for the period 16.06.2007 to 27.10.2010 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he principal manufacturer who consumes it captively, the assessable value be determined on the basis of principle laid down in the case of Ujjagar Prints or Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000. 7. We find that the issue is no more res integra in view of the ratio laid down by the coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Cosmo Conductors Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Pune Vs. Mahindra Ugine Steel Co. Ltd. [2015(4) TMI 351 - SUPREME COURT]. This Tribunal in Cosmo Conductors Pvt. Ltd.'s case observed as follows:- 6. The short issue involved in present appeals is : determination of assessable value of insulated copper conductors ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e excisable goods shall be the transaction value of the said goods sold by the principal manufacturer; (ii) in a case where the goods are not sold by the principal manufacturer at the time of removal of goods from the factory of the job-worker, but are transferred to some other place from where the said goods are to be sold after their clearance from the factory of job-worker and where the principal manufacturer and buyer of the goods are not related and the price is the sole consideration for the sale, the value of the excisable goods shall be the normal transaction value of such goods sold from such other place at or about the same time and, where such goods are not sold at or about the same time, at the time nearest to the time of remova ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s in the manufacture of their finished products after availing credit of the duty paid on the job worked goods by the appellant. 10. After the insertion of Rule 10A in the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000, the department disputed the method of assessment adopted by the appellants. It is the contention of the department that as per sub-rule (iii) of the said Rule 10A read with Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000, the valuation of the job worked goods be 110% of the cost of production or manufacture of the excisable goods, since the principal manufactures who received the job worked goods instead of selling the same, captively consumed in the manufacture of finished goods. 11. We find that this issue is no more res-in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2013 (298) ELT A186 (SC). 12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Pune vs Mahindra Ugine Steel Co Ltd (supra) interpreting Rule 8 and Rule 11 of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 for determination of the assessable value of the goods manufactured on job work basis held that Rule 11 would be applicable in arriving at the assessable value of the excisable goods. In the said case, the respondent was engaged in the manufacture of motor vehicle parts from the raw material supplied by the manufacturers of the motor vehicles on labour charge basis. The manufactured motor vehicle parts are later supplied to the principal manufacturers who used the said parts in manufacture of vehicles. The question before the Hon'ble Supreme Court w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ods are not sold by the respondent. However, second condition is not at all met or fulfilled inasmuch as the goods are not used by the assessee for consumption either by him or on his behalf in the production or manufacture of other articles. As stated above, these goods are supplied to the manufacturer of the motor vehicles. ----------------------- ----------------------- 12. Once we come to the conclusion that Rule 8 is not applicable in the case of the respondent, it is Rule 11 only which becomes applicable as that is residuary provision for arriving at the value of any excisable goods which are not determined under any other rule." 13. Even though the aforesaid judgement was delivered prior to insertion of Rule 10A, however, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
